Supreme Court’s Article 370 verdict ignites hope and concern

In a landmark decision on Monday, December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the Central government’s decision to abrogate Article 370, which granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The verdict, delivered by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, comes after a lengthy legal battle that has captivated the nation. The court, in its majority judgement, held that the Presidential Orders issued in 2019, which revoked Article 370 and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh — were constitutionally valid. The bench concluded that Article 370 was a temporary provision and that the President, acting under Article 370 itself, had the power to revoke it. The verdict sparked a range of reactions across the country. Supporters of the government hailed it as a historic moment for India’s national integrity and a step towards bringing Jammu and Kashmir into the mainstream. However, critics expressed concerns about the potential impact on the region’s unique culture and identity. While acknowledging the setback, former chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad reacted to the SC verdict by calling it “disappointing”, adding that “Kashmiri people are not happy”. However, his willingness to accept the verdict and his positive response to the scheduled assembly polls suggest a pragmatic approach to moving forward. His stance reflects the complex emotions and conflicting perspectives existing within the region. One of Azad’s primary concerns lies with the potential for increased unemployment in J&K. He believes that the removal of Article 35A, which restricted job opportunities to locals, could lead to an influx of applicants from other parts of the country, further exacerbating the existing unemployment woes. JKNC leader Omar Abdullah’s statement on his X (formerly Twitter) account exhibits disappointment along with unwavering resolve. He emphasises the long-term nature of their struggle, suggesting that the legal battle may continue even after this verdict. This determination sends a powerful message of resilience and commitment to their cause. While Abdullah’s statement doesn’t specify the exact nature of the “long haul” ahead, it implies continued political and legal efforts to challenge the abrogation of Article 370 and push for a resolution that respects the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. This statement will likely be interpreted in different ways by various parties. Supporters of the abrogation may see it as a sign of defiance and continued resistance. Others may view it as a necessary expression of disappointment and a commitment to seeking a just solution. Regardless of interpretation, Abdullah’s statement is a clear indication that the fight for Kashmir’s future is far from over. While addressing a workers’ convention, Abdullah also said that the SC’s decision has harmed the bond between J&K and the rest of the country. He launched a scathing attack on the Central government, questioning its claims of progress in J&K after the abrogation of Article 370. He asked a series of pointed questions, highlighting the lack of tangible improvements in the region:

• Jobs: “Can any youth say that a government officer came to their house and offered a job on August 5, 2019?”
• Economy: “Is there a factory here where our youth is earning employment?”
• Healthcare: “Has a new hospital opened where our patients are being treated?”
• Education: “Has a school, college or university been established where our children are studying?”
• Governance: “Has it become easier for us to go to any government office? Do government officials treat us with respect today? Do they meet our demands?”
• Safety: “Is the fear of guns over?”

Abdullah’s questions implicitly criticise the government’s narrative of significant progress in Jammu and Kashmir since the abrogation. He challenges them to identify even one area where the lives of people have demonstrably improved. This statement is likely to resonate with many in J&K who have not experienced the promised benefits of the abrogation. It highlights the gap between government pronouncements and the livid realities of people on the ground. People’s Conference leader Sajjad Lone emphasised that despite the legal removal of Article 370, it remains a fundamental part of the political aspirations of the people of J&K. This suggests a deep-seated belief that the article served a vital purpose in safeguarding the region’s identity and autonomy. Despite the disappointment, Lone expresses hope that justice will eventually prevail. His statement, “Let us hope at a future date Justice wakes up from its slumber of pretence” suggests a belief that the current situation is not permanent and that the fight for a just resolution continues. Lone’s statement that “Justice has eluded the people of Kashmir” is likely to resonate with many Kashmiris who share his views on the significance of Article 370 and the lack of statehood. It may also fuel further resentment and resistance against the government’s actions. Conversely, supporters of the abrogation may view Lone’s statement as an attempt to re-ignite tensions and hinder progress in the region. They may argue that the Court’s decision is final and that it’s time for everyone to move forward. Mehbooba Mufti, the president of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), used strong language to convey her deep disapproval and the significant implications of the verdict for J&K. Mufti described the verdict as “nothing less than a death sentence”, highlighting the gravity of the situation and suggesting a complete destruction of the hopes and aspirations of the people. She further stated that the decision marked the defeat of the “idea of India” with which Jammu and Kashmir had acceded in 1947. This suggests a fundamental betrayal of the promises and principles upon which the region joined the Indian Union. Mufti’s specific mention of J&K as a Muslim-majority state adds another layer of interpretation. It suggests that the verdict specifically targets and undermines the identity and interests of the Muslim population. This fiery statement has the potential to fuel criticism and concerns about the handling of the Kashmir issue and Muslims overall in the Indian Union. However, it seems that Kashmiri leaders are deliberately ignoring the pros and emphasising on the cons of the abrogation of Article 370. Karan Singh, a Congress leader and son of former Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, offered a more positive perspective on the Supreme Court’s verdict regarding Article 370. Singh acknowledged that a segment of the population will be unhappy with the decision. He encouraged them to accept it as a finality, recognising the SC’s validation of the abrogation. This implies a call for pragmatism and moving forward within the current legal framework. Singh also urged individuals to channel their energies towards fighting the next elections. He suggested that this is a more constructive way to express dissent and advocate for their interests than dwelling on negativity or engaging in futile resistance. This promotes active political participation and engagement as a means of change. Potentially, Singh’s message of acceptance and constructive engagement may contribute to calming tensions and facilitating a transition to a more stable political environment. His emphasis on elections could encourage higher voter turnout and broader representation of diverse viewpoints within the political system, thereby suggesting continued political participation in shaping the future of J&K. Keeping political interests aside, one cannot deny that there has been a starkly visible improvement in ground security, tourism and a reduction in terror incidences in the valley which was marred by terrorism since three decades. In his judgement, Chief Justice Chandrachud acknowledged the sensitivities surrounding the issue and emphasised the need for a nuanced approach to address the concerns of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court also directed the Centre to take steps to conduct Assembly elections in the Union Territory by September 30, 2024, and restore statehood to it at the earliest. Furthermore, the Court recognised the importance of addressing the concerns of the people of J&K and directed the government to take various measures, including: Establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the historical grievances of the people. Implementing effective measures to ensure the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the region. Initiating dialogues and consultations with all stakeholders, including political groups and civil society organisations, to ensure a peaceful and inclusive future for Jammu and Kashmir. Despite the Court’s decision, the future of J&K remains shrouded in uncertainty. The success of the upcoming elections, the government’s implementation of the Court’s directives, and its ability to address the concerns of the people will all play crucial roles in shaping the region’s trajectory. The situation in J&K is likely to remain fluid in the coming weeks and months. As the dust settles on the Supreme Court’s verdict, it will be crucial to monitor the region closely and observe how the political and social landscape evolves. Yana Mir is a journalist and social activist. She is the vice-president of All JK Youth Society. She tweets at @MirYanaSY. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._

Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.